Talk:SpaceX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Paragraph on other ventures

I find this revert rather curious:

If the intention of the said paragraph was purely "aggrandizement by association with famous successful ventures", then I could understand why the moderating sentence was reverted. In such case however I would think the entire paragraph to be unjustified.

If however the intention of the associated paragraph was to show that SpaceX appears to be well funded (a valid reason to write the things in the paragraph), then why revert a sentence saying just that?

This issue is also mentioned in a related discussion at Talk:Falcon I. Ropers 14:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph to be professional biographical for Elon Musk, the founder and CEO/CTO of the company. The reason why I reverted the article was the information that has been released by Musk and SpaceX has been ambiguous on the subject of the funding of the Falcon V -- we do not know whether he is taking on additional investors for the program or parts of the program. Further, we don't know Musk's pain threshhold. He might have had it with this program and is about to pull the plug on funding. While I have no reason to believe that's true, we just don't know. More neutral language than "well funded" is warranted, in my opinion. Dschmelzer 17:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article needs serious reworking. It reads like a company brochure. Some one other than Dschmelzer needs to rewrite it or else give it the axe. –Floorsheim 04:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will answer any specific criticism on the text. I don't think the question of who edits the text is of any importance. Dschmelzer 16:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Neuron. That quote definitely helps tie things together. It seems like there is a looming suggestion that there is something profound about this whole SpaceX and Falcon rocket thing. Could you guys do more to point out what that is to someone clueless like me? For example, is SpaceX the only privately owned company to get involved with the space industry? What are the potential consequences of improving the cost and reliability of space access by a factor of ten? And if SpaceX is not the only company involved in space, who are its competitors and what are their plans? –Floorsheim 18:26, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(My personal off-the-cuff view, which I'll probably try to make NPOV and integrate into the article later) Historically, space launch has been the domain of large government-contracted defense companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, who really haven't been inclined to design a launch vehicle with low cost as its goal; indeed, they've arguably been inclined to do the exact opposite, since it results in greater profits. In the past few decades, many people have tried to make low-cost rockets. This was particularly the case in the 90s, with many companies trying to do this. In an interview Musk mentions that he thinks these companies failed for one or more of the following reasons: lack of critical mass of technical skill, lack of funding, and a reliance on non-existent technology. I agree with his assessment.
In the past few years we've seen something very interesting: folks who got rich off technology in the 90s and are also interested in space. Such people are similar to past endeavours, in that they have plenty of desire and ideas about getting into space cheaply. Unlike people in the past, however, they also have the funding to actually pursue their goals, and often have experience with managing successful technology companies and thus know how to attain a critical mass of technical skills. Elon Musk with SpaceX is one example, with his company working on cheap orbital unmanned launch. Paul Allen (with Burt Rutan) and (arguably) John Carmack are other examples, working on cheap manned suborbital launch. I'm not aware of any other sufficiently-funded groups working on cheap launch, with the possible exception of the enigmatic Blue Origin (owned by Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos).
Many have claimed that cheap access to space is the main thing blocking a lot of interesting space applications. Musk himself was planning on personally funding a Mars Oasis mission with the goal of putting a small greenhouse on Mars, but cancelled/postponed that and started SpaceX when he discovered that launch costs would be the primary cost of the mission. It's been claimed that lack of cheap access also keeps us from having (or putting funds towards adequately developing) things like orbital hotels, solar power satellites, off-world mining, etc.
Hmm... perhaps a lot of what I just wrote would be better off in private spaceflight. --NeuronExMachina 08:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with all of this and add two things -- Russian and Ukrainian rockets (e.g., the Dnepr, with which the Falcon V will compete head-to-head) have been by far the price leaders up to this point and have been able to take market share from the big US contractors for non-governmental launches. There is some discussion about how much of a subsidy these Russian and Ukrainian rockets enjoy because they are derived from military hardware, so the cost comparisons are controversial. The Falcon I and Falcon V are competitively-priced against these rockets, even though arguably SpaceX does not enjoy subsidies on the costs side.
I think a large part of the US space establishment (especially military space) is hoping for SpaceX success. However, a lot of iron rice bowls will be destroyed in the US if SpaceX succeeds, so we can expect this SpaceX article to be controversial after the first successful launch. Kistler's ox has been gored already. Orbital Sciences will lose a lot if the Falcon I succeeds. Boeing will lose a lot if Falcon V succeeds. Dschmelzer 14:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the "BFR", I think it was around in rocket circles well before the Doom game. That said, I guess the SpaceX folks are of an age where it could be both a reference to the BFRs of old and an homage to Doom. --Dschmelzer 10:48, 09 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One precendent that come to mind is Beal Aerospace. They too promised to develop a new launcher that would cost a fraction of the price of existing rockets.

[edit] Big Fucking Rocket

Does anyone have a reference for this?, I've removed it pending a source--Duk 16:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverted; citation added. Source document was linked at the bottom of the article, but citation made explicit now. Dschmelzer 18:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, should we self-censor "fucking" as "f*cking" or something like that? I personally don't mind it, but I imagine that there may be many people who don't anticipate seeing a curse term when looking up information on rocket companies. --NeuronExMachina 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with NeuronExMachina, we should self-censor curse words. If we don't, God knows what could happen! I think "f*cking" is an acceptable substitute. --Dogman-x 13:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have replaced it with F*****g. please can we do that on this page as well.

It's been put back, I see. Here's my beef. The cite given to justify it says "F---ing" with dashes. I think unless we can find a verifiable cite that it is indeed spelt out explicitly, we should mirror what the cite says. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have removed it as it is unencyclopediatic. --GW_Simulations 14:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Since when has it become 'encyclopedic' not to tell exactly what every new, unusual, or uncommon abbreviation stands for? Not explaining what the initialism stands for leaves the reader wondering "Why BFR? Why not Q7;p?" I have much more sympathy for the reader whose curiosity includes wanting to know what initialisms are short for than I have for the reader who is insulted by, or runs away from, 'profanity' in an article. If there is verification that the thing is known by an initialism, and that the initialism stands for something specific, then both the initialism and what it stands for should be included. Doing anything less is poor encyclopedia-keeping.
My vote is that, as soon as we have verification, we restore the explanations of the initialisms. An undefined initialism in an encyclopedia is a glaring omission.
And a note to the user who asked whether "Big Fucking Test Stand" was necessary: Wikipedia is a great resource; I'm glad that your siblings are using it. If you are concerned about the vocabulary or topics that they may encounter in Wikipedia, then I suggest that you not allow them to use it, or that you supervise their use of it, or that you be available to explain to them anything that they may have questions about. It seems that your concern is what information they are exposed to; it can be hard to prevent their exposure to it—but you can be there to give them your opinion and interpretation of such information, to give them your take on it and what they should think of it. I offer you that same suggestion about the Internet as a whole, not just Wikipedia. If they continue to use Wikipedia and the Internet, especially without your constant supervision, it will be just about impossible for you to keep them from seeing things that you don't want them to see. You might find that, for many purposes, a good substitute is the World Book Encyclopedia, which you can get on CD-ROM, or in book form, or online. It will cost money, but will be largely free of the things that you're concerned about stopping your siblings from seeing. Your local public library almost certainly has a recent World Book. ... Oh; also, be sure to mention to your brother and sister that, like any source, but even more so than some other sources, Wikipedia is not to be trusted 100%. It is subject to unintended error, and intended vandalism, a gazillion times every day.
President Lethe 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Produce a verifiable reference citing a company employee using the term spelt out, for either or both, and I'm all for either or both being spelt out. But as it stands right now, it's hearsay that it actually stands for anything in particular. We don't do hearsay. Sorry if this seems a little terse but the above reads like you've set up a straw dog and then happily knocked it down (that may not be the case, but that's how it reads), because *I* certainly didn't say we need to censor. I just said it's not cited. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that we agree but that the agreement didn't quite come across. I did write "If there is verification" and "as soon as we have verification". I didn't advocate "re-including" the term any sooner than we had citable verification. My post was in response to the general idea of censorship, especially when it results in not defining a term that is worth defining. The pro-censorship "straw dog" was not set up by me, but was brought up by the first poster in the "Big Fucking Test Stand" section, immediately below; and I will happily try to knock down pro-censorship things. The truth is that I wrote my post for the "Big Fucking Test Stand" section of this Talk page, with the "Big Fucking Rocket" section as only a secondary thought—and then posted it in both sections. In some sense, my post was better for the BFTS section than the BFR section; you're right about that. It's also possible that I misinterpreted the meaning of GW_Simulations, who deleted the stuff as "unencyclopediatic". Maybe GW_Simulations was talking only about the question of verification; for some reason, my first interpretation was that it was a pro-censorship deletion. I hope this clarifies; sorry about the possible misunderstanding, and sorry if I misinterpreted GW_Simulations's reasoning. And, yes, I understood that you, Lar, weren't for censorship. And sorry I tend to be wordy in making my points. And you're right that I should've just said to see my comment in the following section. (Do note that my reply to you, Lar, in this section is being posted AFTER my reply to you in the next section.) President Lethe 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason that I believe it to be unencyclopediatic is because I am yet to come across any official proof. Assumptions and hearsay are not encyclopediatic. If it can be proven, I have no objection --GW_Simulations 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Understood and agreed. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your reasons earlier. President Lethe 18:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
OK I think we're all back on the same page again, thanks! (whew!) One of the coolest things about WP is that it is NOT censored. I would dearly love to put "Big Fucking x" (for multiple values of x) in the article if we can only find a cite, as I think it really conveys the character of this company. They're cool, they're not staid and BS-ey and covered in triplicate paperwork, and they just want to get shit done instead of pussyfooting around with 10 M USD design studies like the big guys. No other encyclopedia could do that. So if we can do it, we should.
The article needs to be POV free, of course, but I will say here in talk, unconstrained by the need to be NPOV, that I love this company a great deal (just as I do Scaled Composits, Orbital Sciences, Bigelow, et al) and terrifically want them to succeed. I cried a little when this launch failed because it would have been cool if it had worked right on the first try. But it's not the end of the world... They'll be back. SO then, anyone have a cite? It might be hard to find but maybe it's out there? ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Fucking Test Stand

is "Big Fucking Test Stand" necassary? My little brothers and sisters dont need to see this.I just got them to start using Wikipedia. Sorry to be a prude but its not very proffesional and some find it offensive.I apologize in advance if I have posted this in the wrong place.24.1.207.27 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it may not be necessary, just as spelling out BFR and other engineers' "locker room" talk may not be necessary. However, BFR and BFTS are internal SpaceX designations, which do stand for those things, or can be reasonably assumed to stand for those things. Does anybody know if there is guidance from Wikipedia on this question? Dschmelzer 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have removed it as it is unencyclopediatic. --GW_Simulations 14:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Since when has it become 'encyclopedic' not to tell exactly what every new, unusual, or uncommon abbreviation stands for? Not explaining what the initialism stands for leaves the reader wondering "Why BFR? Why not Q7;p?" I have much more sympathy for the reader whose curiosity includes wanting to know what initialisms are short for than I have for the reader who is insulted by, or runs away from, 'profanity' in an article. If there is verification that the thing is known by an initialism, and that the initialism stands for something specific, then both the initialism and what it stands for should be included. Doing anything less is poor encyclopedia-keeping.
My vote is that, as soon as we have verification, we restore the explanations of the initialisms. An undefined initialism in an encyclopedia is a glaring omission.
I concur with this sentiment, and have re-removed the speculative meanings of BFR and BFTS, as the only supporting reference to the meanings was a single article by a third party interested in the "better faster cheaper" aspect of the company, and had no supporting reference or quote to support that the meaning is the official one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoooder (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
And a note to the user who asked whether "Big Fucking Test Stand" was necessary: Wikipedia is a great resource; I'm glad that your siblings are using it. If you are concerned about the vocabulary or topics that they may encounter in Wikipedia, then I suggest that you not allow them to use it, or that you supervise their use of it, or that you be available to explain to them anything that they may have questions about. It seems that your concern is what information they are exposed to; it can be hard to prevent their exposure to it—but you can be there to give them your opinion and interpretation of such information, to give them your take on it and what they should think of it. I offer you that same suggestion about the Internet as a whole, not just Wikipedia. If they continue to use Wikipedia and the Internet, especially without your constant supervision, it will be just about impossible for you to keep them from seeing things that you don't want them to see. You might find that, for many purposes, a good substitute is the World Book Encyclopedia, which you can get on CD-ROM, or in book form, or online. It will cost money, but will be largely free of the things that you're concerned about stopping your siblings from seeing. Your local public library almost certainly has a recent World Book. ... Oh; also, be sure to mention to your brother and sister that, like any source, but even more so than some other sources, Wikipedia is not to be trusted 100%. It is subject to unintended error, and intended vandalism, a gazillion times every day.
President Lethe 03:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Repeating this comment, verbatim, instead of saying "see above", seems unnecessary. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Some make a comment in one section and don't take a look at related sections. I don't think the reason for having separate sections for these two related points is a strong reason in the first place. But, because someone else made two separate sections, I followed the thorough path of allowing readers of either section to see the same comment. That's all. President Lethe 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We do need to make this clean for children. I put in some hyphens and explained the reference to the Big F---ing Gun in the Doom game. SpaceX may use colorful names internally, however I am sure all their employees would want us to talk about SpaceX with the same degree of appropriate language as their PR department would use. I don't think we will see BFR or BFTS in their press statements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.170.255 (talk • contribs).

They do use it on their website. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Finally, please sign your posts. --StuffOfInterest 14:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Your link to the google cache fails to provide a page, researching their site for references results in this one result which they use the BFTS abbreviation but refer to it as their "very large test stand." If they were to explicitly call it the Big Fucking Test Stand it could be said to be the proper name for it, however it is possible the acronym is for something entirely different and the phrase was coined as an alternative. I don't think censoring Wikipedia is correct, but I think it is more correct to make obscene phrases from acronyms that may be entirely innocent. I say leave the Doom reference in (as a possible source of the acronym name) but strip the claims that it is explicitly the Big Fucking Test Stand.Yoooder
They mention just the acronym. F could stand for anything. Big Fun Test Stand? Is removing the f-bomb really censorship or just avoiding controversy? I mean after all we all know what F stands for. Do we really have to spell it out? Don't you think at least one version of wikipedia should be suitable for children? If you oppose censorship why did you remove my reference to the BFG 9000 weapon in the Doom game. If you remove that a second time than it is YOU who is censoring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.169.230 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Images

Has SpaceX or whoever shot the photo that we are using explicitly given us permission to use the photo? If it was added under the principles of fair use as opposed to SpaceX releasing this to public domain, we will need to make sure this is noted. Dschmelzer 18:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

SpaceX has released these pictures under the GDFL. See The image talk pages on commons. --Duk 18:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Dschmelzer 19:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
True for all pics or just those? The pics of Kwajalien receding from the camera are tres cool... ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Relating to this, it would be nice to know if the graphic comparison of the various Falcon models was released under GFDL. I see that the image which had been used here since last year ([1]) has now been deleted. It would be nice to get it back if legality can be determined. --StuffOfInterest 18:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming launches

The “upcoming launches” section should be rewritten as there has been another attempted launch and therefore a reschedule of the next launch. Due to extensive nature of this rewrite I would request that someone with more writing skill than me do this task. 24.18.102.77 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Launched (apparently successfully at least leaving the pad) at 5:30 PM eastern today ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

MSN has a story: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11997932/ I saw the webcam cutout but before the cutout the pics were amazing.. the atoll shrunk in the distance (the camera was onboard, looking down) ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

story updated, rocket lost.

It looked like a guidance problem; the webcast feed from the vehicle (before the feed failed) seemed to show the rocket spinning rapidly. Allenc28 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

SpaceX reported that the rocket and its satellite were destroyed during the ascent. "We did lose the vehicle," said Gwynne Shotwell, the company's vice president for business development to reporters via a telephone link. "Clearly this is a setback," she said, "but we're in this for the long haul." ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what's the connection between the Ariane flight and the SpaceX flight mentioned at the end of the paragraph? This sentence should be eliminated, since it does not contain any information about SpaceX. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.162.163.144 (talk • contribs) .

Both rockets failed on their maiden flight. The Ariane mention could be better integrated, but it is definitely worth having there. --StuffOfInterest 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

We probably should consider using <ref>link or footnote goes here</ref> (in the body) and <references/> (at the bottom) tagging. There are a lot of references at the bottom now but not much tie in to the article body. This is an emerging standard here, now that mediawiki supports it, as I understand it. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

props to those who are cranking these out, the article is changing nicely. Great work! ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.136.16.3 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Video, second launch

From watching the video, it appears the rocket had successful first-stage separation (at about T+02:58) and second-stage ignition, reaching an altitude of over 161 Km by around T+04:00. At about T+04:45, there's obvious circular wobbling. "Telemetry lost" by about T+05:00. Damn. At least they've got another shot at this, and they've proven much of the system works. -Kris Schnee 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

During stage separation, the first stage struck the second stage nozzle. No visible damage. The nozzle had some material around it that came loose after ignition (protective bumper?). A circular oscillation began a little way into the second stage burn which increased in amplitude until loss of signal. Near the end of the video the craft rotated, in addition to the oscillation, at which point transmission ended. Musk says the second stage engine shut down due to a roll control issue. --Duk 04:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the video again, I'm wondering if a Helium leak or malfunctioning roll control jet caused the first stage to hit the second stage engine bell. The craft rolled during separation when the engine bell was struck. Once the second stage was under power, it corrected course. --Duk 16:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I watched it a few more times myself and I tend to agree. It takes a bit to adjust your perspective as the camera is on the second stage body which is pitching over. It is really a testament to the engineering how quickly the second stage corrected course and that the Kestrel nozzle survived such a deformation! I'm really looking forward to hearing the analysis of what happened. I'd hoped we would see an update today on the first stage recovery and preliminary investigation on the problem. --StuffOfInterest 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Looked like a coning motion. Poor fuel tank baffles -> swirling fuel? Can't wait to see the analysis. --Duk 06:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
... we believe that the slosh issue can be dealt with easily by adding more baffles, particularly in the LOX tank. [2] --Duk 16:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/Talk%7ESpaceX_31ae.html"